Aaron Rodgers

[denverYooper]

It's hard to take this seriously. Packers were 4-1 with Rodgers. They nearly beat Pittsburgh without him. I get the accumulated injury deal, but that's a problem for everyone. Just ask Philly. You never know what's going to happen. Maybe with Rodgers back, and with a two-headed running game, the Packers could dominate TOP against other teams and protect their defensive-back depleted defense and be totally competitive. If Rodgers is healthy, who knows - maybe he gets as blistering hot as in 2010 and they run a team off the field when they weren't supposed to and it propels them to Championship. Careers are limited, you never want to miss an opportunity, no matter how improbable.

This is important. One thing the Rodgers-less offense has done is found that they have a couple of great young RBs, at least one of whom can catch.

[Rutnstrut]

This is important. One thing the Rodgers-less offense has done is found that they have a couple of great young RBs, at least one of whom can catch.

True, but I doubt stubby utilizes them if he has Rodgers back.

[denverYooper]

True, but I doubt stubby utilizes them if he has Rodgers back.

Valid point.

[Pugger]

True, but I doubt stubby utilizes them if he has Rodgers back.

Mike might if wants to keep defenses honest and to protect his QB's mended collarbone.

[woodbuck27]

This is important. One thing the Rodgers-less offense has done is found that they have a couple of great young RBs, at least one of whom can catch.

Yes. We have to be happy about that and the RB position.

We know we have a REAL RB (s) on our Team's Roster. We needed to see that develop this Season and I think we got there.